Re: [boost] Proposal: Post-Release Maintenance Team (WAS Re: [test] [gcc-4.3.2] check_is_close and check_is_small issues)

Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal: Post-Release Maintenance Team (WAS Re: [test] [gcc-4.3.2] check_is_close and check_is_small issues)
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-19 03:18:53

Dean Michael Berris wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Juergen Hunold
> <juergen.hunold_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Hi Dean !
>>
>> On Thursday 19 February 2009 02:34:05 Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for these links! Did they apply cleanly to Boost 1.38.0 for
>>> you? I tried both (in the given order above) and I got some rejections
>>> when I applied them to a cleanly unpacked distribution.
>>
>> Well, actually not ;-((
>> I think you can safely ignore the patch to utils/runtime/cla/parameter.hpp as
>> this just fixes a regression which happened in between the changes.
>> I'll dig further into this and ask the maintainer for permission to merge at
>> least the warning fixes to the release branch.
>>
> 
> Alright.
> 
> Now this time, would there be any objections if I (or other people)
> tried managing a patch release for 1.38.0? Would anybody else be
> interested in helping release a 1.38.1 with fixes hand-ported from
> trunk to 1.38.0?
> 
> I've found some Jamfile fixes required to work around the (I'm
> guessing, now defunct) 'message' function in Boost.Build v2 that's
> bundled with Boost 1.38 that might be worth looking at.

I don't understand what you're saying, sorry. The 'message' function is fine
as far as I'm concerned -- what "work arounds" do you have in mind and
for what purpose?

- Volodya